Spirit of God becomes One inside of Man

But are you qualified in some way to make that statement? Or it's converse? How will you support any further argument if you cannot demonstrate to us your deep qualifications in smurf analysis and detection?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well Well Well how smurfy of you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You obviously have no smurf of how many Saturday Morning smurfs and deep smurf and smurf I smurfed.

note: you must be fluent in smurf to understand smurf. Smurf is the perfect smurf in the smurf. Smurf's very own smurf is smurf and siting up in high smurf, smurf looks down on us smurfs and smurfs. Just see the life of The Last Prophet Smurf - and The Smur'an is the smurf enough for most smurfs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God becomes one insinside of man because God intercepts the mind - A non-local psyche that conducts mental manifestations from other minds.

We all know that the universe is an infinite incomprehensible being called God. Unimaginably strong is his muscle. You dumbfucks probably think God is invisible. I see him everyfucking day. When she says "Oh God. YES! YES!"

 

I think you missed the gist of the question.
I was asking in the first person sense, rather than assuming that you
are already operating out of the position of knowledge.

IOW suppose you hear mention of something that is new or unverified by you (eg - something on the dark side of the moon or something related to god or maybe even the suggestion that your wife is having an affair)

So what general principle you apply to determine whether the case for the scenario is either

1. the reason you don't see it is because you don't have the proper reservoirs of knowledge
2. the reason you don't see it is because it doesn't exist

PS - thats a pretty good effort for three minutes

 

you're the one insisting on an absolute negative ... probably because it makes you comfortable .....

 

I would initially attempt to satisfy to my self that I had as much possible knowledge as was required to make an informed decision. Then I would determine if I know, as a fact, the answer to the question. If that was not possible (dark side of the moon) then I may conclude I can not know for certain.

So in essence I can determine if I do or do not have the proper amount of information but if I do not or am not able to gain enough information I may not conclude that the reason I don't see it is because it doesn't exist but instead that I can not know if it does or does not exist.

 

aka - value systems (likes/dislikes etc etc)

That is why there is vast differences between, say, what monsanto and what an independent ecologist would deem as "satisfactory" research into the risks of introducing GM crops.

 

Well, for me to be satisfied I would need a double blind independent scientific set of experiments. BUT, if it was not possible to test the hypothesis then I am also satisfied with concluding I don't have the answer.

Does GM food pose a health risk?
Well, the possibility GM food is unhealthy exists.

So, we test the hypothesis.

 

so why are the two different parties in disagreement?

BTW - I seriously doubt whether all your issues of evidence are determined by a series of scientific tests and that all that falls by the way side leaves you satisfied with the position of "all I know is that I don't know".
eg - infidelity, politics, etc etc